#Apathy is the greatest enemy of this country

[nowisthewinter]

First starting on the plus side for the primary election result for NC, Jeff Jackson won his nomination. So, to all of those who came out and voted for him, I say, "Thank you from the bottom of my heart." Now keep it up this November. We can get him that seat if we stick to it.

Now on the minus side, LESS THAN 24% of registered NC voters came out to vote in the primaries. Look at that number. That's embarrassing!

I keep on hearing people whine, "Why do we get such horrible people to choose from every four years?"

IT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T COME OUT TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES, BRENDA!

You had a nice wide range of people to pick from and several weeks of early voting. What kept you?

Non-voters out number actual voters by a huge margin and I swear, they are going to end up killing this country. ...but they'll show up at protests for the Tiktok vid!

[unhonestlymirror]

I realised what I felt when I was a kid and watched hetalia fandom from afar.

It felt like watching my own country, my land being raped. I just didn't look at it. It was none of my business, I said. It's just a stupid manga, I said, just several hundreds of idiots. It has nothing to do with reality, I said. I already knew how russkiy mir looked like in Belarus and what russkiy mir did to my mom, but I just wanted to live in my little peaceful real world.

I didn't look at it because it simply was unbearable to look at. Although, I myself did not fully understand why.

Then russkiy mir knocked to my home. I still forbid myself to remember my home, I will think about it tomorrow, I say. I suddenly realised myself in Lithuania, going to studies in a different institution, different people, different language, choir, swords, I have no idea what I am doing and I am scared, dances, activities, posting art on tumblr. Life was good. Life was actually really good. Way better than in Ukraine. The issue was that I still wanted to die, which was terribly unfair to people who tried so hard to make me feel better, and I still was losing weight, hair, sleep, health. I couldn't remember when I ate the last time, what I ate. I couldn't remember the names of people I've learned mere minutes ago. I couldn't smell my own sweaty and dirty clothes. I couldn't see the dust on my floor and my dirty dishes. I didn't feel physical pain. I didn't feel cold. I didn't feel hunger until I was losing consciousness. I've cried a lot for no reason at all, publicly, though. Time has stopped.

There was something that prevented me from healing.

That was the moment I stopped writing the sentimental memoirs about my family and wrote "Lithuania", "Ukraine" in tumblr search for the first time.

And then I met my greatest enemy face to face for the first time, under the tags of the only things in the world, which give me the meaning of life.

My greatest enemy gave me a reason to live on. My greatest enemy gave me the opportunity to pour out my hatred in a healthy way. My mom, after all, poured it out via domestic violence. Watching people drawing my countries being russia's sisters, I didn't feel such big hatred even when my family was shelled with russian missiles. It was such a great hatred that it replaced my love for Jujutsu Kaisen, family calls, guitar and other stuff that used to bring me joy, but moreover, it replaced my apathy.

Then I started drawing hetalia fanart. I didn't want to be Stierlitz from the famous anecdotes. I didn't plan to make any friends here. I came here with a drawn sword for a specific purpose and desire to protect my land. Honestly, I am still surprised I managed to make friends here. For me, hetalia is on the same level as kremlin in terms of the degree of pollution. But I guess, it's just another proof that good people can be found anywhere, even in the educational ass of the world.

Then I learned about rusliet, and for the first time since I've left my home, I felt fear. Lithuania is everything I have, it's my Tara, and I am Scarlett. I have no other place to go. It's the land whom I love dearly and whom I want to see happy and blooming. Lithuanians in hetalia don't feel what I feel when seeing rusliet because they didn't experience what I did, and I pray to God for things staying that way.

I promised myself that I would be careful, but I would never, never ignore people offending my land and putting it in danger. You come to my land with malice in your heart or with zero thoughts in your brain - you leave with my sword sticking out of your ass.

I am worried that training this community turns me into a monster myself. I hope I don't look like a monster to my friends. Sometimes, I act like one to my family, and then I feel the great guilt, but they got used to that the same way I got used to my mom breaking plates. Although I've come here with great hatred and anger, I still can't find any malice in my heart, and I still don't receive any satisfaction from causing pain.

You can say hetalia is my destiny, just like gaining Lithuania. I finally understood what love for one’s land is. I perceive Lithuania as my land as well, and I will gnaw the throat of anyone who dares to take it from me.

I have the goal in life: to protect my land, to protect the people I love, even if I never manage to become myself again.

[edwardgdunn]

I Found Happiness, It Was Under the Couch!

The title of this article sounds ridiculous, does it not? Yet most people look for happiness as if it is an object they can find if they just look long and hard enough.

There is a relatively new field of psychology that studies the causes of happiness and what has and continues to emerge is that happiness is in the doing, not in the having. It is found in the experiences we share with others as opposed to the material things that we so steadfastly believe will bring happiness.

This is poignantly evidenced by deathbed utterances. You are not likely to hear the dying espouse, “I sure regret that I never got a Cadillac.” What you will hear is, “I sure wish I had danced more, gone barefoot on the beach more, traveled more, spent more time with my family, not sweated the small stuff.” Oddly, the dying seem to have a crystal clear understanding of the true nature of happiness that is lost on the living. That’s truly tragic but it does not have to be that way at all.

Another enemy of happiness is apathy and/or laziness. Think about how many examples there are in your life of friends or acquaintances who choose to spend almost all of their leisure time on their couches in front of the television or surfing the web.(By the way, using the term “surfing” to describe an activity that involves sitting in a chair staring at a screen is a terrible disservice to a word that really means being outdoors in the glorious sunshine, carving up a triple set of turquoise blue waves.) Life will pass you by on your couch – I promise.

Can you imagine a dying person saying, “Man, I sure wish I’d have stayed home and watched more TV”? The reason healthy people stay planted is just plain laziness in most cases. It’s just too much trouble to make a plan, get up, get ready, and go somewhere and before you hit me with the expense argument, the list of completely free things to see and do is virtually endless and the axiom, “The greatest things in life are free”, holds much truth. A walk in the woods with your love (spouse, partner, dog, friend all qualify) can be one of the most amazing things in the world.

Perhaps the greatest thing you can do for yourself and those you love is to get out there and share experiences together. Those are the things you will one day look back on as the happiest times of your life. You will have long forgotten the car, the clothes, the big screen TV. But you will most certainly remember that day at the beach, that play, that concert, that walk under the stars, that trip, that hike, that sunset.

I am writing this on a Friday. I love Fridays. The day sits on the leading edge of a weekend full of glorious possibilities. My wife has been traveling on business this week and she returns home this evening. We will share a meal then start planning our weekend. Who knows what’s in store – the museum? a drive through the Louisiana bayou country? a trip to some new, unfamiliar place? I don’t know but I do know this, the anticipation and planning is at least half the fun. I also know what we won’t be doing – looking for happiness under the couch.

~Edward G. Dunn

Check out the Happiness 2.0 Podcast — https://podcast.edwardgdunn.com/

Read the Happiness 2.0 Blog — https://edwardgdunn.com/blog

[fighter-paladin]

I wrote this with the knowledge that this election could have gone either way. Nothing this country does surprises me anymore.

One of the key things I have in my beliefs is that "apathy is the weapon of the enemy". We have to lay down and lick our wounds right now but understand that this is when the real work begins.

"Half the country voted for him" half of us didn't. Nows the time to be a true American, not a "patriot" but an American. The greatest thing to come from American culture is our sheer audacity. When used for good it has allowed us to win wars. So nows the time for our audacity to win us this Cold Civil War we have going on. Fight every step of the way, become ungovernable, but remember you are one person and this is a massive wildfire. When your cup is empty, go rest until you are able to fill it again.

The Right wants us to be apathic, to give in and give up because it is easier to control a frightened populace. But we're going to get through this the same way we've gotten through everything else. Together. Unified. Why? Because that's the American way, that's the ideal American way. Unified, one nation. It's how the North beat the South and its how we will beat these fascists.

Rules of life I've learned from 2016-2024

-Keith Dwyer

1. Governments are run like reality shows. They create artifical drama to keep the populace interested and distracted from real issues. This doesn't mean your vote doesn't count and your voice isn't heard.

2. Capitalism is the root cause of the modern day's problems. It is run off the expectation that the general populace are both workers and consumers. It is an unstable government that functions only in the short run. In Capitalism there is no planning for the long run, the point is to collect as much money as you can while the rest of the populace burns.

2a. To do this, the ones above set the laws for the ones below. These laws are governed to keep the lower class barely scrapping the poverty line, but just high enough that they can keep being consumers. Effectively keeping us as financial batteries for the higher ups, but keeping the lower classes suffering enough so they can't rise up.

2b. Capitalism hates two things; competition and education. Education causes the lower masses to become intelligent and create competition. The oligarchical structure of Capitalism hates real competition, instead the powers that be create shell corporations to share with the other oligarchs. By keeping the masses uneducated, the powers that be manage to keep rebellion and competition to a bare minimum.

3. Captialistic practices are unsustainable because money is an addictive substance. Once a person gains it they want more of it, never stopping and never being full.

3a. Addiction is an exponential process.

3b. A money addict will never be satisfied with what they have. They will see their other rich colleagues and feel envy and rage that they aren't richer than them. Once a person reaches a certain level of wealth it becomes impossible for them to care about anything else.

3c. Addicts in active addiction do not care about anyone but themselves and how to get their hands on their substance of choice. In a money addict's case this means exploiting workers, causing them to die on the factory floor, burning down rainforests and destroying the world to their own end. To an addict in active addiction none of this matters so long as they pull ahead.

3d. Addicts are manipulative and good at convincing people to join their side. Capitalistic societies applaud psychopaths and those with anti social personality disorders. That's why so many psychopaths and narcissists go into the business field. Because their lack of caring, compassion and empathy means that they will do whatever it takes to gain money, which in turn, causes active addiction to take hold and causes the individual to spiral further down.

4. People have power. For better or worse. The people will always have the power above the powers that be.

4a. People are fools. They will follow whoever uses the buzzwords that make them feel safe and secure. This is how the conservative base has been able to use trigger words like "freedom" or "the American way" or "the good old days" to turn their followers into a cult.

4b. This tactic can be reversed for the sake of good. Learn the enemy's buzzwords and use them to educate the masses in a language they'll understand.

4c. The enemy is corruption. The enemy are those that seek to keep anyone who is not like them in bondage and suffering. They attack these people because it is easier to control a frightened populace.

4d.  Machiavelli was wrong. It is not better to be feared than loved if you can not do both. Fear breeds resentment and rage, these ideas transcend generations. A son will feel his father's rage in addition to his own. Once enough people feel their own rage added with their ancestors rage over being oppressed that's when and why riots start. Riots are the voice of those who have been quiet too long.

4e. Unfortunately, this idea can also be reversed. The enemy can use riots for their own ends, though these riots are born from fear, not rage. Fear of the unknown, and fear of change. But mostly, fear of losing their power (read: the populace is convinced by the powers that be that they are losing their power when in reality it is just the tyrant they are following that is losing their power).

4f. Do not be content to follow another's lead. It is better to stand alone than be surrounded by those who would feed you to the wolves. In this same vein do not look for followers, look for those with the potential to lead in them.

4g. Do not lead from the back, lead from the front. Take charge and take responsibility for your actions.

5. Suffering is part of human nature. However, it is often exasperated by outside forces that are beyond your control. Sickness, politics, wars, everyday inconveniences. When times of suffering come around, remember that all life is temporary. If the goods are temporary, so are the bads.

5a. There is a concept called the Wheel of Fortune which states that every person rotates their fortunes in life. One moment you are at the top of the wheel and life is kind, the next you are at the bottom and life is suffering. This rarely is due to a person's interference, but instead by outside forces.

5b. Prepare. Prepare to be on the bottom of the wheel. Save a portion of whatever value you can whenever you can. Even the smallest amount will help you in the long run.

6. The game we are forced to play isn't fair, because the lower class were never taught the rules for our station in life.

6a. In financial matters, the government will always try to take as much money as they can from you. Do your own research, 9/10 there are programs set up to truly help the lower class but they are not advertised or they are buried beneath advertisements for the same service for a much higher price.

6b. Welfare programs and free programs that benefit the people are always demonized because they do not contribute to the bottom line. Use them anyway.

6c. You pay for the brand. Buy generic, it's better and cheaper because they don't upcharge for the brand name.

7. Human beings are animals, learning to become Gods. You will never be the person you've fantasized about being. Once you accept this, you will become the person you were always meant to be. When we strive for perfection, we will often find ourselves subject to the persuasive arguments of the enemy. Kill your pride. Kill your arrogance. Once you do this, you separate yourself from the animals.

7a. Be kind, but don't feel the need to be nice. Kindness is acting for others, supporting and caring for the people around you. Being nice is being concerned with how you are perceived. Kindness is genuine. Niceness is self serving.

7b. You can only hope to break free from human's animalistic nature but giving up your pride. Giving up your hubris and arrogance. Understand that the world is bigger than your backyard, and that those who think differently from you are not lesser because of it. Artifical concepts such as race, gender, sexuality, political parties, etc are ways to divide the mind. They occupy our thoughts with meaningless chatter so that we can not expand our thinking. The only way to become more than an animal is to open one's mind to the world around them.

7c. Lose your paranoia but be smart. Listen to your instincts and listen to the world around you. Do not assume malice with everyone you meet but be prepared in case malice comes around.

7d. Be in touch with your body. To the best of your ability, try and live healthy and well. Mind you, I say to the best of your ability. There are cases where "living healthy and well" may simply mean getting out of bed for physical, mental or emotional reasons. But make sure to get out of bed then. Do not give into the dark cloud life brings around, it will keep storming if you are laying in bed or not.

7e. Know context. Understand that life is not about you, it is about all of us as a whole. If someone speaks, and it does not concern you, do not speak over them. If you disagree with how a statement is worded but understand what the speaker is trying to say, do not call the speaker out or try and get them to speak with your tongue. Not every voice at the table must be heard. Sometimes you're just there to listen and learn.

8. Religion is optional. Faith is essential.

8a. Religions are made to explain the faith of a culture. They are meant to be guidelines on how to have faith but, like money, power is also an addiction. Power is intoxicating, and often leads to delusion. Any and ALL religious leaders who claim to be God in the flesh are delusional and not to be trusted.

8b. Any and ALL religions that place any group of people over another group of people are not to be trusted.

8c. God, faith, whatever you may call it, does not want your money. Any and ALL religions that claim otherwise or claim to be collecting "for God" are not to be trusted.

8d. Faith is to religion what kindness is to being nice. Faith is the backbone of life, and it is how we survive. In a secular way, it is an acceptable delusion to have. A belief in something greater than ourselves. A way for us to see past our own noses and engage in the wider world. Faith is greater than religion, and religion without faith is how tyrants rise to power.

8e. Faith does not need to be in a God or spirit, but it does have to guide you forward. A spark of hope which can never truly burn out. All people are given the chance to have faith, for many it is taught through the religion they grew up with, however faith also comes from killing one's own pride and arrogance.

8f. Pride and faith can not co-exist with each other. Pride tells you that you are the greatest thing to walk the Earth, while faith tells you that you are part of something greater than yourself. These ideas conflict too much to accept both. Of the two, accept faith. For its the truth. No person is greater than another, but there are people who are lesser than the collective they find themselves in.

8g. Those who claim to be God or to be God's vocal point, those who harm others for their personal gain, those who use one of the Lord's many names to profit off lost souls, those who claim absolutes and absolute dominion over their flock. These are the ones who are lesser than the collective. The ones who twist God's words to their own ends and their own wants and whims. Those who allow their pride to guide their path, those who claim to be superior over their fellow human beings without looking at their own flaws.

8h. These are the corrupted, they have lost themselves to their own vices and pride. Pity them for they have suffered and so resort to becoming this way. But don't feel sorry for them for every person makes their choice, every person has their own decisions to make. Any person who does not take ownership over their own sins, their own flaws and the pain they have caused others, is truly a coward. Learn from their mistakes, so that you can become a better person.

9. The meaning of life is to learn. To grow and mature and to pass those lessons onto the next generation. To live only for oneself is to spit in the face of humanity's evolution. We are social creatures, we function together as units. Those who purposely harm others, and those who are apathic to the suffering of others are little more than beasts.

9a. Every generation believes themselves superior to the generation that came prior. To some small extent this is true, the evolutionary point of humanity is to mature after all.

9b. A generation must be cognizant of their defects and flaws as well as their strengths. Understand that you will make amazing advancements never seen before, but you will also make grave errors that the generations after you must fix. This is the wheel of fortune summed up.

9c. To the generations after mine I say this. Be wise. I pray that you be wise, and learn from the ones before you. I pray that the suffering you must endure is lesser than the suffering my generations are enduring now.

9d. To the generations before me I say this. Thank you. Thank you to the ones who came before me who I've learned from. Thank you to the ones who came before me who fought the same battle I'm talking about now. Thank you to the ones who are no longer here, because they live on through me and the lessons they taught me. Thank you to the ones who are still here, who continue to teach me every day. I pray that the suffering you went through is worth it, and I thank you for your sacrifices.

10. Apathy is how a people die. Do not wait for change to happen. Make change happen. With each crashing wave of; bad news, end of the world predictions, pandemics, pain, war, death, and so on, stand tall. Those waves won't stop coming but the second you lay down you will be toppled over.

Apathy is the weapon of the enemy. They use it so that good people, strong people, feel useless. Feel worthless. Feel hopeless. Hope is always there. Hope is faith. So cling to hope, fight for today and tomorrow and remember the sacrifices of yesterday that have led you here.

Abandon your pride. Abandon your hatred and your malice and embrace change. Embrace what's next to come, embrace the unknown. What we face now are the screams of a dying paradigm. What happens when this is all over? We rebuild, we restructure and we create something better than what we had before. But we can't do that if we buy into the apathy of the enemy. And we can't do that if we give into our own vice, our own pride and wrath. Know when to take a stand and when to stand down but most of all.

Know to be kind. Know to care for those around you, know to love and love deeply. Love the world around you. Shine bright with a burning love for humanity that burns away the shackles of apathy and hatred. It's the most revolutionary thing a person can do in today's world.

[that-devout-catholic-woman]

I'm torn on this new wave of anti death penalty stuff in the US. There are so many flaws and actually innocent people on death row. But I also have immense sympathy for every innocent life that as taken from these crimes. After Bernard, there is Alfred bourgeois, who sexually molested and beaten a toddler to death by bashing her skull in. Will people protest for his life, and not the life of his victim? Also, it's so dumb to be called a hypocrite for being pro life and pro death penalty. Pro life means to protect the life of an innocent baby, people sitting on death row, they've committed crimes. Some are innocent and must be saved, many are not.

If you’re torn, let me share with you my beliefs on the subject and you can tell me if any of this rings true in your soul as well.

Keeping people on death row, the executions themselves, and the many appeal courts in the process to execute someone is all incredibly expensive for the US government. Guess who pays for all that. The American taxpayer. By supporting the death penalty or at least keeping it around because of apathy, there is blood on our hands—a mix of guilty and innocent blood both. I don’t feel right in that. If even one innocent person is killed in this system, the system is flawed. In much the same way that Jesus shouldn’t have had to die as an innocent man, neither should the innocent people of our country.

Pro-life is not just about abortion, it’s about supporting every person’s right to life from womb to tomb, conception to natural death.

What happened to poor Bernard is an absolute travesty. The world lost a changed and good man, a father to a daughter, a good Christian. He wasn’t even the person to pull the trigger, he was just a kid from a bad part of town who got caught up in something way bigger and badder than himself. He didn’t deserve to die. But here’s the kicker, even if he hadn’t redeemed himself, he still shouldn’t have had to die.

I understand how you feel about Alfred. But I’m still against killing him too. People commit heinous and unthinkable travesties, but that’s not to say that they can’t be redeemed. If that were true, why would Jesus have died on the cross in the first place? The Bible is full of stories where God took some of the worst of humanity and made them holy. Take Paul for instance. Paul wrote much of the New Testament and is regarded as one of the most famous Saints. He used to be a murderer of Christians, he killed tens if not hundreds of Christians in the early Church. And yet God saved him. Cutting someone’s life short sometimes means that God doesn’t have the time or the chance during their lifetime to soften someone’s heart.

I also feel terribly for that poor toddler and their family. How terrible to have to go through such a thing. But again, in God there is paradise and mercy. That toddler is way better off spending forever in God’s loving hands than here. And God’s mercy extends to Alfred if he were to truly repent for his sins.

You can believe that both lives matter, and as Christians this is what we are called to do. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the second highest command, and this especially includes our perceived enemies. We’re supposed to love them and pray for them and hope for their conversion, too.

There can be justice without death, and this is the greatest lesson that we as a human race need to learn.

[luketalksabout]

"Upuan" by Gloc-9

Back in the early 2000’s, in an era where hip-hop was still one of the most neglected genres of music and was barely considered as an art form by many, one particular writer by the name of Aristotle Pollisco, better known as Gloc-9, emerged from the ruins of a so-called Filipino hip-hop. While most rappers back then promoted nearly all forms of indecency, Gloc-9 tackled important social issues such as poverty, prostitution, homophobia, criminality in the Philippines. His song Upuan serves a vivid depiction of the effects of bad governance; similar in many ways to Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good and Bad Government wherein he painted on the left side of his fresco the aftermath that follows when tyranny is seated in the throne. In this song, Gloc-9 spoke about the utter ignorance and apathy of that very same kind of tyrannical government towards the rest of the impoverished population. Working class Filipinos are barely getting by, nearly starving to death all while the corrupt politicians whom once begged for their votes stay as callously glutted as they can be. Even though he wrote this song more than ten years ago, it still remains relevant up until this day as it still represents the current problems our country is facing today; an enemy we are still yet to defeat. Much like the immortal works of Lorenzetti, this song will remain relevant and echo throughout our history as it tells the story of the oppressed; how the rich remain rich all because the poor stayed poor. In a society where the truth can easily be rewritten by those powerful enough to do so, freedom of speech should be of greatest importance. The voices of the oppressed often go unheard when it is not loud enough, songs like these amplify the sounds of our chants and ignite the fire in our hearts that may one day change the way everything works for the better.

[historymeetsliterature]

Freedom from fear - Aung San Suu Kyi - 1990

It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar with the four a-gati, the four kinds of corruption. Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake of those one loves. Dosa-gati is taking the wrong path to spite those against whom one bears ill will, and moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. But perhaps the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya, fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption. Just as chanda-gati, when not the result of sheer avarice, can be caused by fear of want or fear of losing the goodwill of those one loves, so fear of being surpassed, humiliated or injured in some way can provide the impetus for ill will. And it would be difficult to dispel ignorance unless there is freedom to pursue the truth unfettered by fear. With so close a relationship between fear and corruption it is little wonder that in any society where fear is rife corruption in all forms becomes deeply entrenched.

Public dissatisfaction with economic hardships has been seen as the chief cause of the movement for democracy in Burma, sparked off by the student demonstrations 1988. It is true that years of incoherent policies, inept official measures, burgeoning inflation and falling real income had turned the country into an economic shambles. But it was more than the difficulties of eking out a barely acceptable standard of living that had eroded the patience of a traditionally good-natured, quiescent people - it was also the humiliation of a way of life disfigured by corruption and fear.

The students were protesting not just against the death of their comrades but against the denial of their right to life by a totalitarian regime which deprived the present of meaningfulness and held out no hope for the future. And because the students' protests articulated the frustrations of the people at large, the demonstrations quickly grew into a nationwide movement. Some of its keenest supporters were businessmen who had developed the skills and the contacts necessary not only to survive but to prosper within the system. But their affluence offered them no genuine sense of security or fulfilment, and they could not but see that if they and their fellow citizens, regardless of economic status, were to achieve a worthwhile existence, an accountable administration was at least a necessary if not a sufficient condition. The people of Burma had wearied of a precarious state of passive apprehension where they were 'as water in the cupped hands' of the powers that be.

Emerald cool we may be_As water in cupped hands_But oh that we might be_As splinters of glass_In cupped hands.

Glass splinters, the smallest with its sharp, glinting power to defend itself against hands that try to crush, could be seen as a vivid symbol of the spark of courage that is an essential attribute of those who would free themselves from the grip of oppression. Bogyoke Aung San regarded himself as a revolutionary and searched tirelessly for answers to the problems that beset Burma during her times of trial. He exhorted the people to develop courage: 'Don't just depend on the courage and intrepidity of others. Each and every one of you must make sacrifices to become a hero possessed of courage and intrepidity. Then only shall we all be able to enjoy true freedom.'

The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in an environment where fear is an integral part of everyday existence is not immediately apparent to those fortunate enough to live in states governed by the rule of law. Just laws do not merely prevent corruption by meting out impartial punishment to offenders. They also help to create a society in which people can fulfil the basic requirements necessary for the preservation of human dignity without recourse to corrupt practices. Where there are no such laws, the burden of upholding the principles of justice and common decency falls on the ordinary people. It is the cumulative effect on their sustained effort and steady endurance which will change a nation where reason and conscience are warped by fear into one where legal rules exist to promote man's desire for harmony and justice while restraining the less desirable destructive traits in his nature.

In an age when immense technological advances have created lethal weapons which could be, and are, used by the powefful and the unprincipled to dominate the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims that 'every individual and every organ of society' should strive to promote the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings regardless of race, nationality or religion are entitled. But as long as there are governments whose authority is founded on coercion rather than on the mandate of the people, and interest groups which place short-term profits above long-term peace and prosperity, concerted international action to protect and promote human rights will remain at best a partially realized struggle. There willcontinue to be arenas of struggle where victims of oppression have to draw on their own inner resources to defend their inalienable rights as members of the human family.

The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. Without a revolution of the spirit, the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences ofdesire, ill will, ignorance and fear.

Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on trying. So free men are the oppressed who go on trying and who in the process make themselves fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain a free society. Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire that their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end. A people who would build a nation in which strong, democratic institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state-induced power must first learn to liberate their own minds from apathy and fear.

Always one to practise what he preached, Aung San himself constantly demonstrated courage - not just the physical sort but the kind that enabled him to speak the truth, to stand by his word, to accept criticism, to admit his faults, to correct his mistakes, to respect the opposition, to parley with the enemy and to let people be the judge of his worthiness as a leader. It is for such moral courage that he will always be loved and respected in Burma - not merely as a warrior hero but as the inspiration and conscience of the nation. The words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatma Gandhi could well be applied to Aung San:

'The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these, always keeping the welfare of the masses in view.'

Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence, and Aung San, the founder of a national army, were very different personalities, but as there is an inevitable sameness about the challenges ofauthoritarian rule anywhere at any time, so there is a similarity in the intrinsic qualities of those who rise up to meet the challenge. Nehru, who considered the instillation of courage in the people of India one of Gandhi's greatest achievements, was a political modernist, but as he assessed the needs for a twentieth-century movement for independence, he found himself looking back to the philosophy of ancient India: 'The greatest gift for an individual or a nation . .. was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind.'

Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavour, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions, courage that could be described as 'grace under pressure' - grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.

Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear ofdeath, fear oflosing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.

The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute. At the root of human responsibility is the concept of peffection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments. It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.

[vegan-and-sara]

In the discussion of how to address the coup attempt in Washington, D.C., I think we need to talk about the rhetorical manipulation that gets trotted out time and again by the DNC.

Democrats like Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden are so quick to emphasize that our priority needs to be “moving on”, “unity”, and “healing”. They want to focus on launching their vision for a new Biden era, not dealing with the shameful end of the Trump regime. And while these goals are certainly important, they’re always brought up as a means of evading the real issue of why we have ended up in such a dark place as a country. Their words have become a hollow excuse for the abject apathy, disinterest, and laziness that has come to define American politics.

There is no way to “move on”, “unite”, or “heal” while the Republican party is not held accountable for its brazen, 2 month sedition campaign. There is no way forward in a democratic system with a political party that does not accept a democratic system. The only movement that can happen as long as we accommodate those who blatantly assault democratic values is movement towards authoritarianism.

The greatest test facing the United States is accountability. Our elected officials are terrified of accountability. They believe that our country’s institutions aren’t strong enough to handle accountability and that enforcing repercussions for bad decisions will weaken us. They do all they can to shield themselves from owning up to anything. Following any desecration of office or abdication of responsibility, they simple cross their fingers and hope that everyone has “learned their lesson” and will never do it again. And the result is that horrible things will happen again and again, and they will only get worse and worse.

Trump’s reign of terror has been enabled by centuries of failures to hold our politicians accountable for increasingly heinous offenses. No accountability for indigenous genocide and land theft. No accountability for the Civil War. No accountability for slavery or Jim Crow. No accountability for the Japanese internment. No accountability for Watergate. No accountability for the AIDS crisis. No accountability for 30 years of war crimes in the Middle East. No accountability for more than 360,000 deaths from coronavirus. None. And for most Americans, it feels like a pipe dream to hope for any accountability for a single Republican seditionist today.

The Republican party is an enemy of the state and they will continue to dismantle American democracy for their own profit at every opportunity. They will not stop until they are stopped. “Moving on” is not bold or admirable or professional. It’s taking the easy way out and condemning the country to ruin.

[haleviyah]

Let’s Put a Positive Spin Here!

So let me start with my shenanigans and jump into helpful things that will get your guys to chillax for a little while and forget about the rent for a few hours.

Right! So, "Rose of Sharon" Second Chapter is being worked on, I just need to polish the first one and polish it pretty. I was thinking - emphasis on THINKING - of showing you guys the pieces of the final script before the episodes are published. The reason is, is to help you guys who are starting to write stories to gain some tips on what we did right and could improve on.

We also have good news! My husband has been itching to put more human characters in the series, which is awesome and exciting to look forward to, because the series will have a more relatable edge. I won't give too much, but those are the biggest highlights, thus far.

Also, I know guys… things are sticky, politically wise. The media is screaming this, the president and his opponent is saying this and that. Now, I'm independent, I'm not a huge fan of the president but I like his energy, however his opponent... should be tending to his family and mental condition first. Part of me is tempted to drop hell-fire bombs just as much as you guys probably are, but in the light of this I have some good news nonetheless.

Now, regardless of whatever outcome, there will be someone there to catch us (United States I mean), someone there to help us recuperate regardless of simple dispute or pure division happening.

I'm not going to lie and say I had a weird dream about this situation, however, I wasn't scared at all despite how graphic it was. I'm not saying I'm a prophet of doom and gloom and I'm not going to rage you all and guilt-trip you into "Accepting Jesus and repenting!"

No…

You know me, I'm not into that religious bullshit. HOWEVER, honoring you as a friend, and artist and more importantly as your neighbor, I just want to let you guys know… it's going to be okay.

It's going to be okay.

God doesn't and cannot hate you.

Don't think this is his punishment, because it is NOT… it is simply a bunch maladjusted people online or in mansions who think they can play God and treat you like a lemming. But their greatest fear is YOU, that's why they are trying to defy your authority in your honest design by trying to lie so damn much. That's why think they want cheat you. That's why these people are not honouring your place as a citizen, because you can call them out! But…You have the power to uphold the honour of being a citizen.

If you are an American, and you are reading this right now (almost half of my audience is American) I just want to let you know that your rights as a voter will not be dishonoured by either Republican, Democrat, or third party entity.

Look: The military is working on it. Your president is pushing keeping that integrity even if it may say he looses the race fairly. And the Supreme Court is on the case! And if anything happens, your friend in Zion will be there. She will catch you when necessary. So don't feel sad. Don't feel defeated if you are going through so! It's all going  to be fine!

Believe me, I'm just as shocked as you are and discombobulated with what is going on! But let's keep our chins up.

We didn't survive COVID, economic terrorism and a biased bunch of platforms spreading drama like a spoiled high-school skank for nothing.

What we persevered as a country should be a testament of how tough and how blessed you really are, and I will relay the same phrase I heard when I felt at the end of my rope:

"I'm not done with you yet."

I'm gonna keep going as a creator, as an artist, as an empath and etc. and all I ask is please, if you feel like it's crappy right now because of "xyz" reasons, don't give into it. Keep pushing. Count your blessings. Keep your chin up and fight. We are strong.

Stay safe. Stay vigilant. And I look forward to seeing you feedback for our works!

===

P.S. For the more "spiritual/bible thumper" sections of the audience here:  I don't know if it helps, but I just want to let Americans know that I don't see America as the epitome of "Laodicea" in contrast to what your preachers may say. I may be sacrilegious to your pastor, but I honestly don't see the spirit of Laodicea here 100%. Arguably you're (America) more like the last remnants of Philadelphia, however Laodicea enticed you through religious or political means. She took advantage of your compassion and twisted it a bit. I make that theory due to the fact America is NOT as apathetic as Laodicea's level of apathy. 

I know ONE nation who is like her entirely, but I dare not speak her name due to her violent temper and willingness to make ANYONE her enemy who criticizes her by name. And she has a quite the history despite her title, but I digress.

America is waking up to corruption and self criticism (barely, but its something I even prayed for). However, she does need to learn Messiah is not found in a president, or government or in any social movements, or even a religion!

Your citizens were created by love, so please operate in love and honour that nature. Your love may have rebuked you in some areas and came off bitter, but as a spokesman I wanna let you know his rebukes don't mean he's mad or bitter at you…

Just looking out for you.

Please keep that in mind. 

[sammybuckyy]

IRON MAN ONE COMMENTS

Iron man one notes

Tony:

- Sexist

- Arrogant

- He doesn’t respect others but especially the lead driver.

- Assumes people aren’t allowed to talk before assuming they wouldn’t want to talk to him.

- Instantly the privileged person

- He alienates the people and someone sticks up for them and he alienates her.

So far unlikeable character established (1:46) into the movie

- The scene was a little self aware but now they’re all like is it true this accomplishment thingy.

- People around him admiring him having a lot sex with women...

- Terrence Howard likes Tony

- BY THIS POINT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE AND BE ROOTING FOR TONY

No one calls Tony out!! How are we supposed to like him?!

There is an extremely prestigious award he decides to gamble instead. Why do girls throw themselves at him?

The one person who calls him out for his bullshit SLEEPS with him (WTF)

The angle they’re going for is: he is a douchebag but *smooth*

Maybe this is a Social Commentary about how the wealthy only surround themselves with people who validate their opinions?

He has no respect for the woman who called him out.

People let him get away with not respecting anything.

Pepper is condescending and judgy 

The double standard Pepper has!!! (ughhh I really wanted to like Pepper)

Allow me to explain: Pepper was being super condescending and having no respect for this woman, and meanwhile practically warships Tony doing everything for him, and protecting him when he treats her horribly. The woman didn’t do anything wrong. She was just a woman who was wearing less clothes and who had a one night stand. and Tony literally had the one night stand with her. DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

Pepper implying “Oh I hate you!! you had sex with Tony Stark you gold digger”

PEPPER LITERALLY SAID: “I do everything and anything tony stark requires”. (in a cold condescending tone)

And we’re supposed to be rooting for Pepper now.

#Pepper is not like other girls

Pepper is doing all the work but she is also validating Tony. 

The girl wearing the masculine outfit is the one we’re supposed to be respecting. <— THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Tony is a lazy playboy?

TONY SAID “I don’t like it when you have plans” ITS HER BIRTHDAY (11:57) he didn’t know her birthday 

He’s all annoying and she’s all like smiling ‘oh Tony’!!

 Pepper likes Tony BEFORE HIS REDEMPTION ARC?!? ← (afterwards note: I realize that Tony may not have had a full redemption arc, I’d just assumed he did, a lot of things were unclear)

This means their relationship does NOT work!!!!!

The world revolves around Tony, that’s what he thinks and the world is proving that to be true -.-

Terrence Howard said “you don’t respect yourself so you don’t respect me?” <— Tony doesn’t respect himself? I- THIS MOVIE IS CONFUSING ME SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME TONY’S CHARACTER

Terrence Howards is calling him out (confusedly), good for him. And obviously Tony is changing the subject and stuff 

So the NEXT person who calls Tony out also gets wooed by Tony and is drinking← I think is to be “humorous.” 

Takeaways from this:

Everyone deep down is who Tony wants them to be!! 

People who try to call out Tony for his bullshit are actually stupid :)

This is a funny joke because Tony is always right

This is a funny joke because people who say Tony isn’t always right, are wrong :)

Making Terrence Howard’s lower than Tony to be like anyone who insults Tony is not as good as Tony. (14:09 approx)

Maybe he’s lacking in the common sense 20:16.

Maybe he is supposed to be brave and good?

Maybe no one has told him what to do so he doesn’t understand this concept.

We are obviously supposed to feel sympathy for him.

There are so many other people who are more extreme than Tony which makes the audience supposed to root for him, cause at least he isn’t “evil”. 

Having Arabs make Tony make weapons invalidated the American mass murderer thing.

American military is the greatest thing ever, the Arabs are bad, how dare they use our weapons.

You can’t just give a pep talk and after words play cool pay off music, and have them organize we’re never gonna make it out- we are gonna make it out.

They are your loyal customers sir 23:35

So many foreign antagonists. Ugh 

Are you gonna tell me the plan

MORAL OF STORY: Everyone is incompetent excempt for Tony Stark (26:22)

Oh no this guy is evil monologuing about how he wants to take America’s power omg horrors

Tony is willing to advocate for human  31:00

TONY REFUSING TO BUILD WEAPONS:

I don’t think this was a development for Tony that he refused to build the weapons. 

Because they never established Tony being self preservative. He does seem like a good assistant so maybe it isn’t character development. This is supposed to be selfless. 

“I’m a macho man who steps in to save my underlings.” Is more of the vibe it gives off

33:17 perfectly shaved beard lol

33- Stark always telling the incompetent underlings what to do.

37:05 furthering the idea that everyone is stupid except Tony and Tony is so much more cooler and power fuller than others

You realize scientist guy had a dead family Iron Man doesn’t listen to people do this why do we find out now? 38:12

39- cool cinematography 

Intended reaction from audience- wow so badass so funny everyone is so incompetent compared to thee Tony Stark (all hail)

Justification FOR TONY STARK BRUTALLY MURDERING A BUNCH OF DEFENSELESS PEOPLE- anger from a dead friend?? But the “my turn” line was so like a JOKE

40:34 made Tony an unsmooth landing!! Yayyyyyyy

“Not bad” is what he says! HE IS APATHETIC

We don’t get to see his reaction to grief 

I just kinda feel like he is back... but like not changed.

He is back- using his social power to make everyone sit down, “we sit down because we’re all the same” vibes

He’s like wow my weapons are being used by non Americans- the injustice!!! These weapons are actually killing AMERICANS! (National anthem plays in background)

He is like- damn you guys for not noticing what an asshole I was (45:32)

Tony: I have changed I am leaving thousands of people unemployed :) (45:45)

He thinks he knows best, he is arrogant and egocentric. He doesn’t listen to anyone’s opinions.

PEPPER obviously uncomfortable with doing Tony heart surgery don’t make people do stuff they aren’t comfortable with!!!! (especially people who are going to be love interests!!!)

Pepper is also ~incompetent~ Tony blamed her for not being able to do something- SHE LIITERALLY SAID SHE COULDN’T!!!!

1:03 “further Jarvis” (flying into the sky too high)- Tony is doing reckless endangerment?

Overworking? -porque

1:05 To Why does Pepper like Tony? Has Tony been anything other than lazy?

People do NOT need to tell Tony that he is good, they need to tell Tony that he sucks.

The story is like “don’t hate yourself Tony” and Tony had never shown any signs of this.

Pepper SO FRIECKEN OBSESSED AND SUPPORTING HIM AND FOLLOWING HIM. Pepper is a stupid love interest. (I’m sorry I really wanted to like her but I hate her character so much for this story)

Pepper is nothing but a love interest. She should have pushed Tony to be a better person. The only people Tony kept in his life are the ones that boosted his own ego. (back to the social commentary I’m SURE Marvel intended)

This movie could have benefitted from enemies to lovers trope.

1:05 no consequences for intending to obliterate everyone

Yas Jarvis-love you vision!!!

-.- everyone in love with Tony -.- (1:08 girls squealing)

1:09 Tony makes her dance and she looks uncomfortable REALLY TONY?!??

“I could fire you”-Tony Stark to his love interest

He forces her to do things and he is her boss. And then she laughs -.-

1:15 he didn’t want refugees to get hurt? He wants to help people now, what was his turning point? What was the moment when he decided to help people? THIS IS A CONFUSING MOVIE

He was locked out and he is my company!! So not actually character development.

Why did Tony Stark start caring about innocent people?

- because the tv was explaining it and he was all like I shall help now

- The time in Afghanistan 

- No impact?

- Let’s stop doing weapons to protect the innocent people? 

- Because he gained empathy, but that contradicts

- Okay strong black and white morality 

- America good every other country bad.

- He had complete apathy because he deemed everyone bad but then he deems some people innocent 

The people he deems good he also deems incompetent. 

1:21 Tony’s not telling the war machine that they shouldn’t kill him because he is Iron Man.

Is Tony not happy? Why is a smart dude like himself be so stupid?

1:25 another classic joke of Tony knowing best and Terrence Howards being wrong 

OKAY THATS ALL I GOT SRY I DIDN’T FINISH I WAS BORED DURING THE CLIMAX

[slowianeczko]

Breaking Globalism's Circle of Lies. In today's rabidly anti- white's climates, pretty much every new movie or TV show is conspicuously diverse and generally anti-white in tone and children have also been targeted by this same poisonous trend through the media and at school. I recently saw The Lion King for the first time. It was the recent remake, not the original cartoon. I had heard that it was far more than a children's film, so I decided to give it a chance and I'm pleased I did in this time of anti-white's programming, which is literally being used to program non-whites to hate us and to make us hate ourselves. It's surprising that this remake still contains so much wholesomeness. This is a film that any nationalist could happily enjoy and show their children. So this is your official spoiler alert. I'm going to tell you the story as I saw it. I'm sure the nationalist message will be clear, so here it goes.   The film is set in a beautiful kingdom of animals called the pride lands where there is abundance, order and hierarchy. All of the different groups of animals understand and accept each other's differences and their place in the natural order because of their innate differences. They remain with their own kind and are exclusive of other groups. The opening scene shows all the different groups coming together to pay tribute to the birth of a new member of the lion family, Simba, who is the son of the King Mufasa. The Lions have ultimate dominion over the territories. All the different groups are united in their celebration of the Lions stewardship of their world. There is no equality agenda here and we see that within the lion tribe there is also hierarchy. The king alone has the leadership role while the females complement this by attending to the day-to-day well-being of the tribe and nurturing the young. Everything is in a state of natural balance and, just works. The lion still eats the antelope in the pride lands but all understand that this is part of the natural order, that everything is contained in a circle of life whereby everything regenerates everything else in a continuous cycle. But all is not well in Paradise. Mufasa has a brother named Scar, but a brother in name only. He looks different, and it is clear that he does not have the interests of the pride at heart as any real lion would. Scar feels that he is smarter than his brother and therefore deserves to be king, though it's clear that what Scar perceives to be his superior intelligence is better described as duplicity, cunning and an unbridled ambition for power. Mufasa’s advisor, Zazu, tells him that Scar should have been expelled from the pride lands long ago, but Mufasa naively refuses to expel him because of his misguided loyalty and compassion. This is something that Mufasa will later come to regret as Scar sees his loyalty only as weakness. Scar hatches a plot to kill Simba by making him curious to go to the Forbidden Zone where the hyenas live. The hyenas are a rapacious and repulsive looking horde of animals that live outside the pride lands. They exist in a constant state of hunger and deprivation because they are not capable of creating or sustaining anything. They are parasites whose greatest desire is to break into the pride lands and suck it dry of its abundance, so Simba and his friend Nala go to the Forbidden Zone and are almost eaten by the hyenas. At the last minutes, Mufasa gets word and comes to save them. He later explains to Simba about the importance of ancestry, admonishing him for jeopardizing the future of the pride by entering the territory of a hostile group. He tells him that the stars in the night sky are his ancestors looking down on him always offering him guidance so he will never be alone. Scar later goes to the hyenas and rebukes them for failing to kill Simba. He proposes an alliance with them to bring Mufasa down, promising them a land of plenty that they can strip bare just as they have stripped bare their own. Scar says the hyenas belly is never full. In return the hyenas pledge to be his personal guard, usurping the position of the pride whose Scar wishes to utterly betray. He understands that hyenas and lions are natural enemies and so will fulfill their side of the bargain. There will no longer be any harmony in the pride lands. I found this a very interesting shot of a crescent moon as scar formalizes his alliance with the hyenas, so Scar engineers an event to bring about his rise to power. He takes Simba into a gorge and then triggers a stampede of wildebeest to kill him. He tells Mufasa about the Stampede and he comes to save Simba, but as Mufasa tries to climb clear of the Stampede he is finally betrayed by Scar who pushes him off the rock to his death. After he discovers his father is dead,  Simba is shamed into exile by Scar who convinces him he is to blame for it all. Scar sends the hyenas off to kill Simba but they fail in this task. Back in the pride lands Scar assumes power by lying about the death of Mufasa and Simba. He then brings the hyenas into the pride lands under the pretense of them being helpful and necessary, but the Lions immediately know this is really a hostile occupation. The natural order has been disrupted and an era of darkness begins. An era that celebrates the inclusion of groups where they do not belong, where everything will gradually degrade. Is this starting to ring some bells? After collapsing from exhaustion while wandering through the desert, a warthog and meerkat stop Simba from being eaten by vultures. When they find out about Simba's tragic past they explain to him that he needs to put the past behind him and not worry about anything. Hakuna Matata is the name of this philosophy. They tell him that when the world turns its back on you, you turn your back on the world. In other words, nihilism and apathy. Simba's new friends take him to their oasis in the desert where all groups mix, and Simba is warned that he must no longer eat his natural diet. That from now on he will eat only insects and bugs, not antelopes. While Simba grows up in the Oasis with his newfound philosophy of self-indulgence, things go from bad to worse back in the pride lands. His father once ruled the land is being stripped bare by the hyenas with the blessing of the new ruler Scar. The Lions, once rulers of the land, are now living in fear dominated by the new arrivals. Sarabi refuses to be Scar’s Queen and Scar says that until she relents, the hyenas will eat before the Lions, standing the natural order on its head and placing the rights of the invaders above the Lions in their own land. So Nala escapes the pride lands to find Simba who has now been accepted by his new friends in the Oasis. Simba's new friends tell him that life is a meaningless line of indifference, that one day we reach the end of the line and that will be it. Simba's friends tell him that there is no circle of life as his father taught him and that life is just something to be enjoyed for a while. However, while looking up at the stars one night, Simba recalls what his father said about his ancestors looking down on him. His friends laugh at this idea, naturally, because they have no picture of the universe beyond pleasures in the here and now. But Simba cannot accept this vision of life and withdraws. His natural urge to discover his true purpose is trying to break through. Looking up at the stars, he shakes a tuft - fur from his mane and the circle of life transports this tuft all the way back to his home. The monkey Rafiki, the spirit-being of the pride lands, now knows that Simba is still alive. Nala arrives at the Oasis and tries to persuade Simba to return home. Despite showing her the delights of the Oasis, Nala does not relent. She knows that Simba must return and that only he can lead the pride lands back to health and restore the natural order. She knows only he can challenge Scar. There is no girl power here. Simba encounters Rafiki while walking in the jungle at night and he takes him to a pond where he sees his father in his own reflection and hears his voice speaking in the thunder. “Remember who you are”, his father tells him. Ultimately Simba returns home to the pride lands, his land, and restores order. The final scene shows all the different animal groups congregating to celebrate the birth of Simba’s own child, and so the circle of life continues. You can make your own assessment of who each of the characters in this story might represent in the world today, but I'm sure the parallels are clear. There are many lessons in this story for us and our children. This is a film you can show them to explain what the natural order means and the importance of tribe, hierarchy and leadership. It shows what happens when different groups mix and subvert this order. It shows that each group is separate and unique for a purpose. It speaks to how a misguided sense of compassion can lead to the  collapse of societies, but doing what is right does not always feel good and what feels good is not always doing right. It's a caution against nihilism, hyper individuality and self-gratification. Hakuna Matata it seems has become something of a guiding principle for many in today's West. The story shows what happens when hostile elements within societies subvert it by making alliances with outside groups. It shows how they portray those invading groups as innocent victims and afford them rights above the native population. We can see this clearly today with the hate speech laws and diversity quotas. These traitors have legalized us second-class status in our own countries. They have made us afraid to speak the truth of multiculturalism and they turn a blind eye to the vile crimes against us to perpetuate this madness. The circle of life is just another name for natural law. It's just another name for the way of the world. It exposes a massive flaw in the idea of multiculturalism and the bogus Equality agenda. Ultimately it's about how the truth, no matter how bad things look, will eventually come to triumph over lies. This is a message we all need to hear right now and this goes double for our children. Be sure to talk to your children about the things they watch. If you notice a wholesome narrative in something they are watching, point it out, talk to them about it. If you see something damaging, which is more likely, also talk to them about it because our enemies are masters of propaganda and they are bombarding our young with it all day every day. Not everyone is in a position to homeschool their children but there is still much you can do to free your children and break the circle of Lies.” https://youtu.be/1cAMDS-tmxc (source)

Way Of The World

[bountyofbeads]

The Last Time Democracy Almost Died

Learning from the upheaval of the nineteen-thirties.

By Jill Lepore | Published January 27, 2020 February 3rd Issue| The New Yorker | Posted February 2, 2020 |

The last time democracy nearly died all over the world and almost all at once, Americans argued about it, and then they tried to fix it. “The future of democracy is topic number one in the animated discussion going on all over America,” a contributor to the New York Times wrote in 1937. “In the Legislatures, over the radio, at the luncheon table, in the drawing rooms, at meetings of forums and in all kinds of groups of citizens everywhere, people are talking about the democratic way of life.” People bickered and people hollered, and they also made rules. “You are a liar!” one guy shouted from the audience during a political debate heard on the radio by ten million Americans, from Missoula to Tallahassee. “Now, now, we don’t allow that,” the moderator said, calmly, and asked him to leave.

In the nineteen-thirties, you could count on the Yankees winning the World Series, dust storms plaguing the prairies, evangelicals preaching on the radio, Franklin Delano Roosevelt residing in the White House, people lining up for blocks to get scraps of food, and democracies dying, from the Andes to the Urals and the Alps.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson’s Administration had promised that winning the Great War would “make the world safe for democracy.” The peace carved nearly a dozen new states out of the former Russian, Ottoman, and Austrian empires. The number of democracies in the world rose; the spread of liberal-democratic governance began to appear inevitable. But this was no more than a reverie. Infant democracies grew, toddled, wobbled, and fell: Hungary, Albania, Poland, Lithuania, Yugoslavia. In older states, too, the desperate masses turned to authoritarianism. Benito Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922. It had taken a century and a half for European monarchs who ruled by divine right and brute force to be replaced by constitutional democracies and the rule of law. Now Fascism and Communism toppled these governments in a matter of months, even before the stock-market crash of 1929 and the misery that ensued.

(Sign Up: Receive alerts about new stories in our exploration of democracy in America.)

“Epitaphs for democracy are the fashion of the day,” the soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, dismally, in 1930. The annus horribilis that followed differed from every other year in the history of the world, according to the British historian Arnold Toynbee: “In 1931, men and women all over the world were seriously contemplating and frankly discussing the possibility that the Western system of Society might break down and cease to work.” When Japan invaded Manchuria, the League of Nations condemned the annexation, to no avail. “The liberal state is destined to perish,” Mussolini predicted in 1932. “All the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal.” By 1933, the year Adolf Hitler came to power, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann was telling an audience of students at Berkeley that “the old relationships among the great masses of the people of the earth have disappeared.” What next? More epitaphs: Greece, Romania, Estonia, and Latvia. Authoritarians multiplied in Portugal, Uruguay, Spain. Japan invaded Shanghai. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. “The present century is the century of authority,” he declared, “a century of the Right, a Fascist century.”

American democracy, too, staggered, weakened by corruption, monopoly, apathy, inequality, political violence, hucksterism, racial injustice, unemployment, even starvation. “We do not distrust the future of essential democracy,” F.D.R. said in his first Inaugural Address, telling Americans that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. But there was more to be afraid of, including Americans’ own declining faith in self-government. “What Does Democracy Mean?” NBC radio asked listeners. “Do we Negroes believe in democracy?” W. E. B. Du Bois asked the readers of his newspaper column. Could it happen here? Sinclair Lewis asked in 1935. Americans suffered, and hungered, and wondered. The historian Charles Beard, in the inevitable essay on “The Future of Democracy in the United States,” predicted that American democracy would endure, if only because “there is in America, no Rome, no Berlin to march on.” Some Americans turned to Communism. Some turned to Fascism. And a lot of people, worried about whether American democracy could survive past the end of the decade, strove to save it.

“It’s not too late,” Jimmy Stewart pleaded with Congress, rasping, exhausted, in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in 1939. “Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light.” It wasn’t too late. It’s still not too late.

There’s a kind of likeness you see in family photographs, generation after generation. The same ears, the same funny nose. Sometimes now looks a lot like then. Still, it can be hard to tell whether the likeness is more than skin deep.

In the nineteen-nineties, with the end of the Cold War, democracies grew more plentiful, much as they had after the end of the First World War. As ever, the infant-mortality rate for democracies was high: baby democracies tend to die in their cradles. Starting in about 2005, the number of democracies around the world began to fall, as it had in the nineteen-thirties. Authoritarians rose to power: Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Donald J. Trump in the United States.

“American democracy,” as a matter of history, is democracy with an asterisk, the symbol A-Rod’s name would need if he were ever inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not until the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act can the United States be said to have met the basic conditions for political equality requisite in a democracy. All the same, measured not against its past but against its contemporaries, American democracy in the twenty-first century is withering. The Democracy Index rates a hundred and sixty-seven countries, every year, on a scale that ranges from “full democracy” to “authoritarian regime.” In 2006, the U.S. was a “full democracy,” the seventeenth most democratic nation in the world. In 2016, the index for the first time rated the United States a “flawed democracy,” and since then American democracy has gotten only more flawed. True, the United States still doesn’t have a Rome or a Berlin to march on. That hasn’t saved the nation from misinformation, tribalization, domestic terrorism, human-rights abuses, political intolerance, social-media mob rule, white nationalism, a criminal President, the nobbling of Congress, a corrupt Presidential Administration, assaults on the press, crippling polarization, the undermining of elections, and an epistemological chaos that is the only air that totalitarianism can breathe.

Nothing so sharpens one’s appreciation for democracy as bearing witness to its demolition. Mussolini called Italy and Germany “the greatest and soundest democracies which exist in the world today,” and Hitler liked to say that, with Nazi Germany, he had achieved a “beautiful democracy,” prompting the American political columnist Dorothy Thompson to remark of the Fascist state, “If it is going to call itself democratic we had better find another word for what we have and what we want.” In the nineteen-thirties, Americans didn’t find another word. But they did work to decide what they wanted, and to imagine and to build it. Thompson, who had been a foreign correspondent in Germany and Austria and had interviewed the Führer, said, in a column that reached eight million readers, “Be sure you know what you prepare to defend.”

It’s a paradox of democracy that the best way to defend it is to attack it, to ask more of it, by way of criticism, protest, and dissent. American democracy in the nineteen-thirties had plenty of critics, left and right, from Mexican-Americans who objected to a brutal regime of forced deportations to businessmen who believed the New Deal to be unconstitutional. W. E. B. Du Bois predicted that, unless the United States met its obligations to the dignity and equality of all its citizens and ended its enthrallment to corporations, American democracy would fail: “If it is going to use this power to force the world into color prejudice and race antagonism; if it is going to use it to manufacture millionaires, increase the rule of wealth, and break down democratic government everywhere; if it is going increasingly to stand for reaction, fascism, white supremacy and imperialism; if it is going to promote war and not peace; then America will go the way of the Roman Empire.”

The historian Mary Ritter Beard warned that American democracy would make no headway against its “ruthless enemies—war, fascism, ignorance, poverty, scarcity, unemployment, sadistic criminality, racial persecution, man’s lust for power and woman’s miserable trailing in the shadow of his frightful ways”—unless Americans could imagine a future democracy in which women would no longer be barred from positions of leadership: “If we will not so envisage our future, no Bill of Rights, man’s or woman’s, is worth the paper on which it is printed.”

If the United States hasn’t gone the way of the Roman Empire and the Bill of Rights is still worth more than the paper on which it’s printed, that’s because so many people have been, ever since, fighting the fights Du Bois and Ritter Beard fought. There have been wins and losses. The fight goes on.

Could no system of rule but extremism hold back the chaos of economic decline? In the nineteen-thirties, people all over the world, liberals, hoped that the United States would be able to find a middle road, somewhere between the malignity of a state-run economy and the mercilessness of laissez-faire capitalism. Roosevelt campaigned in 1932 on the promise to rescue American democracy by way of a “new deal for the American people,” his version of that third way: relief, recovery, and reform. He won forty-two of forty-eight states, and trounced the incumbent, Herbert Hoover, in the Electoral College 472 to 59. Given the national emergency in which Roosevelt took office, Congress granted him an almost entirely free hand, even as critics raised concerns that the powers he assumed were barely short of dictatorial.

New Dealers were trying to save the economy; they ended up saving democracy. They built a new America; they told a new American story. On New Deal projects, people from different parts of the country labored side by side, constructing roads and bridges and dams, everything from the Lincoln Tunnel to the Hoover Dam, joining together in a common endeavor, shoulder to the wheel, hand to the forge. Many of those public-works projects, like better transportation and better electrification, also brought far-flung communities, down to the littlest town or the remotest farm, into a national culture, one enriched with new funds for the arts, theatre, music, and storytelling. With radio, more than with any other technology of communication, before or since, Americans gained a sense of their shared suffering, and shared ideals: they listened to one another’s voices.

This didn’t happen by accident. Writers and actors and directors and broadcasters made it happen. They dedicated themselves to using the medium to bring people together. Beginning in 1938, for instance, F.D.R.’s Works Progress Administration produced a twenty-six-week radio-drama series for CBS called “Americans All, Immigrants All,” written by Gilbert Seldes, the former editor of The Dial. “What brought people to this country from the four corners of the earth?” a pamphlet distributed to schoolteachers explaining the series asked. “What gifts did they bear? What were their problems? What problems remain unsolved?” The finale celebrated the American experiment: “The story of magnificent adventure! The record of an unparalleled event in the history of mankind!”

There is no twenty-first-century equivalent of Seldes’s “Americans All, Immigrants All,” because it is no longer acceptable for a serious artist to write in this vein, and for this audience, and for this purpose. (In some quarters, it was barely acceptable even then.) Love of the ordinary, affection for the common people, concern for the commonweal: these were features of the best writing and art of the nineteen-thirties. They are not so often features lately.

Americans reëlected F.D.R. in 1936 by one of the widest margins in the country’s history. American magazines continued the trend from the twenties, in which hardly a month went by without their taking stock: “Is Democracy Doomed?” “Can Democracy Survive?” (Those were the past century’s versions of more recent titles, such as “How Democracy Ends,” “Why Liberalism Failed,” “How the Right Lost Its Mind,” and “How Democracies Die.” The same ears, that same funny nose.) In 1934, the Christian Science Monitor published a debate called “Whither Democracy?,” addressed “to everyone who has been thinking about the future of democracy—and who hasn’t.” It staked, as adversaries, two British scholars: Alfred Zimmern, a historian from Oxford, on the right, and Harold Laski, a political theorist from the London School of Economics, on the left. “Dr. Zimmern says in effect that where democracy has failed it has not been really tried,” the editors explained. “Professor Laski sees an irrepressible conflict between the idea of political equality in democracy and the fact of economic inequality in capitalism, and expects at least a temporary resort to Fascism or a capitalistic dictatorship.” On the one hand, American democracy is safe; on the other hand, American democracy is not safe.

Zimmern and Laski went on speaking tours of the United States, part of a long parade of visiting professors brought here to prognosticate on the future of democracy. Laski spoke to a crowd three thousand strong, in Washington’s Constitution Hall. “laski tells how to save democracy,” the Washington Post reported. Zimmern delivered a series of lectures titled “The Future of Democracy,” at the University of Buffalo, in which he warned that democracy had been undermined by a new aristocracy of self-professed experts. “I am no more ready to be governed by experts than I am to be governed by the ex-Kaiser,” he professed, expertly.

The year 1935 happened to mark the centennial of the publication of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” an occasion that elicited still more lectures from European intellectuals coming to the United States to remark on its system of government and the character of its people, close on Tocqueville’s heels. Heinrich Brüning, a scholar and a former Chancellor of Germany, lectured at Princeton on “The Crisis of Democracy”; the Swiss political theorist William Rappard gave the same title to a series of lectures he delivered at the University of Chicago. In “The Prospects for Democracy,” the Scottish historian and later BBC radio quiz-show panelist Denis W. Brogan offered little but gloom: “The defenders of democracy, the thinkers and writers who still believe in its merits, are in danger of suffering the fate of Aristotle, who kept his eyes fixedly on the city-state at a time when that form of government was being reduced to a shadow by the rise of Alexander’s world empire.” Brogan hedged his bets by predicting the worst. It’s an old trick.

The endless train of academics were also called upon to contribute to the nation’s growing number of periodicals. In 1937, The New Republic, arguing that “at no time since the rise of political democracy have its tenets been so seriously challenged as they are today,” ran a series on “The Future of Democracy,” featuring pieces by the likes of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. “Do you think that political democracy is now on the wane?” the editors asked each writer. The series’ lead contributor, the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce, took issue with the question, as philosophers, thankfully, do. “I call this kind of question ‘meteorological,’ ” he grumbled. “It is like asking, ‘Do you think that it is going to rain today? Had I better take my umbrella?’ ” The trouble, Croce explained, is that political problems are not external forces beyond our control; they are forces within our control. “We need solely to make up our own minds and to act.”

Don’t ask whether you need an umbrella. Go outside and stop the rain.

Here are some of the sorts of people who went out and stopped the rain in the nineteen-thirties: schoolteachers, city councillors, librarians, poets, union organizers, artists, precinct workers, soldiers, civil-rights activists, and investigative reporters. They knew what they were prepared to defend and they defended it, even though they also knew that they risked attack from both the left and the right. Charles Beard (Mary Ritter’s husband) spoke out against the newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, the Rupert Murdoch of his day, when he smeared scholars and teachers as Communists. “The people who are doing the most damage to American democracy are men like Charles A. Beard,” said a historian at Trinity College in Hartford, speaking at a high school on the subject of “Democracy and the Future,” and warning against reading Beard’s books—at a time when Nazis in Germany and Austria were burning “un-German” books in public squares. That did not exactly happen here, but in the nineteen-thirties four of five American superintendents of schools recommended assigning only those U.S. history textbooks which “omit any facts likely to arouse in the minds of the students question or doubt concerning the justice of our social order and government.” Beard’s books, God bless them, raised doubts.

Beard didn’t back down. Nor did W.P.A. muralists and artists, who were subject to the same attack. Instead, Beard took pains to point out that Americans liked to think of themselves as good talkers and good arguers, people with a particular kind of smarts. Not necessarily book learning, but street smarts—reasonableness, open-mindedness, level-headedness. “The kind of universal intellectual prostration required by Bolshevism and Fascism is decidedly foreign to American ‘intelligence,’ ” Beard wrote. Possibly, he allowed, you could call this a stubborn independence of mind, or even mulishness. “Whatever the interpretation, our wisdom or ignorance stands in the way of our accepting the totalitarian assumption of Omniscience,” he insisted. “And to this extent it contributes to the continuance of the arguing, debating, never-settling-anything-finally methods of political democracy.” Maybe that was whistling in the dark, but sometimes a whistle is all you’ve got.

The more argument the better is what the North Carolina-born George V. Denny, Jr., was banking on, anyway, after a neighbor of his, in Scarsdale, declared that he so strongly disagreed with F.D.R. that he never listened to him. Denny, who helped run something called the League for Political Education, thought that was nuts. In 1935, he launched “America’s Town Meeting of the Air,” an hour-long debate program, broadcast nationally on NBC’s Blue Network. Each episode opened with a town crier ringing a bell and hollering, “Town meeting tonight! Town meeting tonight!” Then Denny moderated a debate, usually among three or four panelists, on a controversial subject (Does the U.S. have a truly free press? Should schools teach politics?), before opening the discussion up to questions from an audience of more than a thousand people. The debates were conducted at a lecture hall, usually in New York, and broadcast to listeners gathered in public libraries all over the country, so that they could hold their own debates once the show ended. “We are living today on the thin edge of history,” Max Lerner, the editor of The Nation, said in 1938, during a “Town Meeting of the Air” debate on the meaning of democracy. His panel included a Communist, an exile from the Spanish Civil War, a conservative American political economist, and a Russian columnist. “We didn’t expect to settle anything, and therefore we succeeded,” the Spanish exile said at the end of the hour, offering this definition: “A democracy is a place where a ‘Town Meeting of the Air’ can take place.”

No one expected anyone to come up with an undisputable definition of democracy, since the point was disputation. Asking people about the meaning and the future of democracy and listening to them argue it out was really only a way to get people to stretch their civic muscles. “Democracy can only be saved by democratic men and women,” Dorothy Thompson once said. “The war against democracy begins by the destruction of the democratic temper, the democratic method and the democratic heart. If the democratic temper be exacerbated into wanton unreasonableness, which is the essence of the evil, then a victory has been won for the evil we despise and prepare to defend ourselves against, even though it’s 3,000 miles away and has never moved.”

The most ambitious plan to get Americans to show up in the same room and argue with one another in the nineteen-thirties came out of Des Moines, Iowa, from a one-eyed former bricklayer named John W. Studebaker, who had become the superintendent of the city’s schools. Studebaker, who after the Second World War helped create the G.I. Bill, had the idea of opening those schools up at night, so that citizens could hold debates. In 1933, with a grant from the Carnegie Corporation and support from the American Association for Adult Education, he started a five-year experiment in civic education.

The meetings began at a quarter to eight, with a fifteen-minute news update, followed by a forty-five-minute lecture, and thirty minutes of debate. The idea was that “the people of the community of every political affiliation, creed, and economic view have an opportunity to participate freely.” When Senator Guy Gillette, a Democrat from Iowa, talked about “Why I Support the New Deal,” Senator Lester Dickinson, a Republican from Iowa, talked about “Why I Oppose the New Deal.” Speakers defended Fascism. They attacked capitalism. They attacked Fascism. They defended capitalism. Within the first nine months of the program, thirteen thousand of Des Moines’s seventy-six thousand adults had attended a forum. The program got so popular that in 1934 F.D.R. appointed Studebaker the U.S. Commissioner of Education and, with the eventual help of Eleanor Roosevelt, the program became a part of the New Deal, and received federal funding. The federal forum program started out in ten test sites—from Orange County, California, to Sedgwick County, Kansas, and Pulaski County, Arkansas. It came to include almost five hundred forums in forty-three states and involved two and a half million Americans. Even people who had steadfastly predicted the demise of democracy participated. “It seems to me the only method by which we are going to achieve democracy in the United States,” Du Bois wrote, in 1937.

The federal government paid for it, but everything else fell under local control, and ordinary people made it work, by showing up and participating. Usually, school districts found the speakers and decided on the topics after collecting ballots from the community. In some parts of the country, even in rural areas, meetings were held four and five times a week. They started in schools and spread to Y.M.C.A.s and Y.W.C.A.s, labor halls, libraries, settlement houses, and businesses, during lunch hours. Many of the meetings were broadcast by radio. People who went to those meetings debated all sorts of things:

Should the Power of the Supreme Court Be Altered?

Do Company Unions Help Labor?

Do Machines Oust Men?

Must the West Get Out of the East?

Can We Conquer Poverty?

Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?

Is Propaganda a Menace?

Do We Need a New Constitution?

Should Women Work?

Is America a Good Neighbor?

Can It Happen Here?

These efforts don’t always work. Still, trying them is better than talking about the weather, and waiting for someone to hand you an umbrella.

When a terrible hurricane hit New England in 1938, Dr. Lorine Pruette, a Tennessee-born psychologist who had written an essay called “Why Women Fail,” and who had urged F.D.R. to name only women to his Cabinet, found herself marooned at a farm in New Hampshire with a young neighbor, sixteen-year-old Alice Hooper, a high-school sophomore. Waiting out the storm, they had nothing to do except listen to the news, which, needless to say, concerned the future of democracy. Alice asked Pruette a question: “What is it everyone on the radio is talking about—what is this democracy—what does it mean?” Somehow, in the end, NBC arranged a coast-to-coast broadcast, in which eight prominent thinkers—two ministers, three professors, a former ambassador, a poet, and a journalist—tried to explain to Alice the meaning of democracy. American democracy had found its “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” moment, except that it was messier, and more interesting, because those eight people didn’t agree on the answer. Democracy, Alice, is the darnedest thing.

That broadcast was made possible by the workers who brought electricity to rural New Hampshire; the legislators who signed the 1934 federal Communications Act, mandating public-interest broadcasting; the executives at NBC who decided that it was important to run this program; the two ministers, the three professors, the former ambassador, the poet, and the journalist who gave their time, for free, to a public forum, and agreed to disagree without acting like asses; and a whole lot of Americans who took the time to listen, carefully, even though they had plenty of other things to do. Getting out of our current jam will likely require something different, but not entirely different. And it will be worth doing.

A decade-long debate about the future of democracy came to a close at the end of the nineteen-thirties—but not because it had been settled. In 1939, the World’s Fair opened in Queens, with a main exhibit featuring the saga of democracy and a chipper motto: “The World of Tomorrow.” The fairgrounds included a Court of Peace, with pavilions for every nation. By the time the fair opened, Czechoslovakia had fallen to Germany, though, and its pavilion couldn’t open. Shortly afterward, Edvard Beneš, the exiled President of Czechoslovakia, delivered a series of lectures at the University of Chicago on, yes, the future of democracy, though he spoke less about the future than about the past, and especially about the terrible present, a time of violently unmoored traditions and laws and agreements, a time “of moral and intellectual crisis and chaos.” Soon, more funereal bunting was brought to the World’s Fair, to cover Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. By the time the World of Tomorrow closed, in 1940, half the European hall lay under a shroud of black.

The federal government stopped funding the forum program in 1941. Americans would take up their debate about the future of democracy, in a different form, only after the defeat of the Axis. For now, there was a war to fight. And there were still essays to publish, if not about the future, then about the present. In 1943, E. B. White got a letter in the mail, from the Writers’ War Board, asking him to write a statement about “The Meaning of Democracy.” He was a little weary of these pieces, but he knew how much they mattered. He wrote back, “Democracy is a request from a War Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what democracy is.” It meant something once. And, the thing is, it still does. ♦

______

Published in the print edition of the February 3, 2020, issue, with the headline “In Every Dark Hour.”

**********

[siryouarebeingmocked]

chalamet-noir

american followers, be safe, and don’t ever forget that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings were committed by white men. when you give people military-grade power and tell them who the enemy is in no uncertain terms, please don’t be surprised when a so-called “right” ends someone else’s life. mental illness is an epidemic, but it does not track with the epidemic of gun violence. most people with mental illnesses do not shoot up movie theaters, schools, and festivals. no, the epidemic is apathy. the epidemic is white supremacy. the epidemic is a young, white, wealthy, and male student being told it’s okay he traumatized a girl through rape. the epidemic is the cycle of apologism we go through, the contortions we are complicit in, to do anything but blame whiteness and maleness. they have no god-given right to be here. slaves built this country. white men have no right to be here. they are history’s greatest villain. they are responsible for the military-industrial complex, they are responsible for all of our wars. they are told, since birth, you can have this, and you can have that. you can, because you are a little man, and men get what they want. whiteness and maleness, whiteness and maleness. the internet has created a playground for their manifestos, the internet owned and run by white males. do not forget this. be safe, and do not forget who the true terrorists are in this country.

I was going to make fun of this in detail, but I realized it’s just complete and utter nonsense. I don’t know if @jlongbone wants to mock it for a video or something.

[queensqewed0722]

Yeoning:  You can be king...

I was listening to my playlist and heard this song again after a long time.  I remember loving this song before when it was used in a fanmade video for the character of King Jinheung in the drama “Hwarang” (wonderfully played by Park Hyung Sik).  Now that I’m into another character who was another great king in history, I find myself revisiting this song.  I think the lyrics are also perfectly suited to Crown Prince Yeoning and describes his own inner journey from denial into acceptance of his destiny as king.  

When the drama first began, Prince Yeoning was his own worst enemy.  He was a royal prince who had all the qualities that other men would have envied: he was handsome, intelligent, wealthy. Yet he had very little faith in himself. It wasn't so much due to a lack of awareness of his own qualities and talents, but more of a decision to believe what his detractors say about him and a choice to live up (or down, if you think about it) to their expectations of him instead of in accordance with what he's truly capable of.  Yeoning acted the way they expected him to: living a dissolute life, wasting his time, talents and treasure over useless pursuits: drinking, gambling, womanizing.  Perhaps he felt it was an easier way to live, rather than stepping up and actually proving them wrong.  And yet his father, King Sukjong, never lost hope that someday, his second son, the one he loved best, would come around and become the king that he hoped to succeed him.  

When Yeoning finally decided to step up, it was inevitable that his actions allowed his light to shine brightly. When he shed off the trappings of a degenerate prince and showed his true colors, everyone began to see what King Sukjong himself had seen long ago:  that Prince Yeoning is a force to be reckoned with and that he is his father’s true heir, more than his brothers Crown Prince Yi Yun (who became King Gyeongjeong) and Prince Yi Hwon.    

Yet Yeoning, despite his father’s words about his qualities and capabilities to become the next king, still didn’t seem to be convinced.  Somehow, he pursued the throne not so much because he felt he had something to give the country, but because he wanted to honor his father’s memory and avenge his younger brother’s death.  It seemed that he was only finally convinced when his older brother, now King Gyeongjeong, told him in no uncertain terms that King Sukjong always had Yeoning in mind when he was thinking of who the next king would be.

Those scenes between King Gyeongjeong and Crown Prince Yeoning, when Gyeongjeong admitted that their father always wanted Yeoning to be his heir, were so intensely emotional.  I felt how humiliated and humbled Gyeongjeong was to realize that his actions of putting Yeoning through trial was actually persecution in the guise of justice.  It was a manifestation of his own insecurities as a King, because he knew from the very beginning that the throne was always meant for his brother.    

And then afterwards, when Yeoning visited his father’s memorial, as he recalled the last words of King Sukjong, it was as if everything finally came crashing down on him and Yeoning finally understood:  he was meant to be king, and he cannot run away from it.  It’s a sad moment because you know that Yeoning finally realizes that he must now make the decision to accept his destiny, no matter how painful it will be for him.

Now, in recent episodes, Yeoning is a different man.  Gone is the apathy, the frivolity, the flippancy.  He is all seriousness and a single-minded determination to achieve the goal that he has set out for himself: to be the king that will look after the needs of his people. But his eyes also look haunted and sad.  He’s begun to understand that the throne is a lonely and dehumanizing place to be.  

It is said that King Yeongjo wrote a lot during his lifetime, and that his writings showed a man of sensitivity and deep personal agony.  If only half of what this drama has portrayed is true, then it’s not surprising that he felt the way he did.  He became one of Joseon’s greatest kings, but it came with great sacrifice, from the beginning of his reign until probably the end of his life.     

[iristial]

SS/Kamen Rider Ramble #101: The Sacrifices For Love & Peace, A World Without Evolto - Kamen Rider Build Episode 48

With the end of summer will come the end of Kamen Rider Build. There’s one episode left, I know, but this is the first Kamen Rider series in which I’ve been following it as it aired, rather than waiting for it to finish, binge watch it and then regret not being into the fandom early on because no one updates anymore

I’d like to be sentimental…if it wasn’t for that fact I need to reserve that for next week along with another bucket of tears. But on the flip side, this episode has finally and completely restored the faith I have in Muto to build up towards an ending that will seal off one of the most solid series in the franchise.

So without further ado, here are my feelings

Just kidding XD though it isn’t far off from the truth

Sheesh, I know this season was intense but wow, just, wow, this episode was like one of the greatest pre-finale episodes I’ve ever seen in the franchise.

Seeing three Kamen Riders transform was a little depressing because KAZUMIN yeah I’m like in denial over what happened so I’m just gonna lie here and contemplate my life choices because why did I let myself get into Kiva last year and thus saw this parallel?????

The final battle…is just great. Normally in this sort of situation the non-Rider characters are put out of commission, and it’s up to the Riders to do all the fighting. But seriously my dreams of Sawa and Misora getting involved in a battle have been fulfilled to some extent because just look at what Sawa did the previous episode. And Misora – okay, it might’ve been her fault that Gentoku interceded to prevent her from being attacked by Evolto, but I’m just going to blame Muto for choosing that way to deliver the killing blow on Gentoku. But even so, she begs Vernage to help her (I really wish they let the Mars Queen have one last kicker at the jerk) and when that didn’t work, she doesn’t even move when Sento and Ryuuga transform. And once Ryuuga got that Black Panel out…she rushes forward with the Pandora Box so that Sento could place the white panel on top. Teamwork at its finest *claps* remind me again why these three belong to the great line of Kamen Rider trios

Gentoku’s cracked helmet is the worst damage I’ve ever seen on a Kamen Rider suit and yikes how did he not get blind

Gentoku has been a point of contention for me throughout this season. Tugged between apathy, intrigue, annoyance and sheer “what on earth did they do to his character?”, I couldn’t decide if I liked how he developed or if he got the heroic redemption a tad too fast. I think at some point, I even wanted him to stay bad – simply to show that the light of the Pandora Box can draw out the worst in people and stay that way, even after you become a Kamen Rider (though I guess Nanba shows you don’t need some bright light to make you scum). But in the end, Gentoku’s farewell has been nothing but poignant – perhaps because he’s been here since the beginning of everything. He has gone from the Prime Minister’s son to an overseer of Faust, then to a broken pawn of a warrior who had to pick at the pieces to follow his ideal of strength, a man who had his father die on his behalf but still refused to believe he could rule a country, and finally an eccentric Kamen Rider who sacrificed his own life to give the remaining members of nascita a fighting edge, reaching out to literally grasp whatever memory he had of his father. He went from an enemy of the heroes to someone they mourned for as he disappeared into the light.

There were definitely ways in which Gentoku could’ve been handled better but I think what sets the heart breaking note to his story is that his father was everything to him. I have no doubts that pre-Pandora Box, he idolized his father’s diplomatic course of action (I did too), and he continued to do so in his…odd sort of way by planning to bring the country together and then pass the reins to his father. Though tbh he was the sanest of the three Prime Ministers so it would’ve been safer that way. But then his father died for his sake, despite everything he had done (including the experimentation on innocent civilians) and he just broke down in the same way Kazumin (may the movie rules of Toei have mercy on his soul) did

Upon reflection, Kazumin and Gentoku were parallels of each other. An organic motif (crocodile) to an inorganic motif (oil/grease) – they were a Best Match. Had both of them lived, they would’ve made great best buds and eventually become those bizarre uncles you meet every family reunion

You know if Muto is pulling a Poppy and Parado scenario I’ll pack my luggage and proceed to chase him down the streets of Japan because you cleaved my heart and decided to put it back, I can’t tell if that’s unacceptable or not

That crowd cheering scene was really heart-warming but the more negative side of me went “so you just hated on Sento the Bunny Kiryu for a full hour and a half, then decided to believe that the Kamen Riders are terrorists even though you literally watched them doing representative matches on your television sets about twenty episodes ago, and on top of that you’re standing near a tower while everything is getting sucked into a black hole and thus leave more guilt on Sento’s plate”. But the more positive side obviously had me thinking that Kamen Rider pre-finales never focus on civilians. We’re always limited to our small world of main/side characters. Politics has had a huge impact on this series – and other ones don’t even approach the topic unless some world leader and a monster is involved – so I think it’s nice that it sets in stone that although the country was physically split into three, they were brought together in spirit and thus stand in ground. Hence the call back to Himuro’s talk on how it’s not the rulers who make a country, but the people who live within them. Man, I miss that old man…

This is so irrelevant but they really went through with the Sawa/Gentoku thing because she doesn’t do anything when Gentoku hits the hay. I know – it’s Toei’s way of saying that you like someone romantically

Though that slightly worried me because they may very well be making a novel where Sawa will end up with Ryuuga or Sento and just…no, there isn’t enough to go by. I’d be more convinced if you told me Sento, Ryuuga and Misora had a threesome or something because that’s Pokemon Special Sinnoh Pokedex Holders level of companionship right there. Not that I like threesomes (I’m confused by how it works in the same way I do with harems despite my liking for every Yona/Happy Hungry Bunch pairing in Akatsuki no Yona and decided that she should just have them all because she is a princess and men aren’t the only one with harems) but you get what I mean

Evolto is getting beaten ~~~ ain’t this great????

I have to say this season went all out with the CGI because that tower of rainbow light and the Genius Bottle getting drained was awesome

The return of Sento Kiryu’s suicidal tendencies….it didn’t hit me until the episode was over that he planned on destroying himself and Evolto. So one minor point of irritation I have is that Sento hasn’t had his self-worth issues properly resolved because, “selfless hero sacrifices his life for the greater of humanity aside” isn’t a sufficient explanation for that. Ever since he accidentally killed Aoba, Sento’s been doing a world streak on suicidal heroic tendencies that borders on the level of OOO Eiji. I just wish that somehow (maybe in the last episode but then that’ll be rushed, that dreadful word) Sento will be reminded and he’ll learn that he has people who love him more than anything and will be sad when he’s gone. I think it could send a positive message to those who struggle with depression or try to pretend everything’s okay when really you need a hug that touches your heart and makes it warm again

…so another thing I regret saying is that I wanted Ryuuga to have his Evolto genetics get more involved in the plot. I did not say that it means he should fly into the abyss/crack between the two worlds so that he’d destroy himself and Evolto because “I’m a part of Evolto, I should be gone too. Thanks for everything, Sento”. YOU – WHAT – BANJOU! I KNOW YOU’RE ALIVE BECAUSE YOU’RE IN THE ZI-O TRAILER WITH SENTO BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANTED??? YOU JUST SAW KAZUMIN AND GENTOKU DIE WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DIE WHY MUST YOU FOLLOW YOUR FIANCEE TO DEATH

Adskbjhuadkjlssk because I want to

Btw on the note of Kasumi, please let world A and world B combine for a world C where she’s alive and so Ryuuga can marry her and be happy and have legitimately cuter-than-space alien children

I REALLY don’t know if I want the other beans to come back since it’ll ruin the E M O T I O N S

Maybe Sento screaming out “Ryuuga!” would’ve made the scene more impactful but then that would mean the meathead is dead, and I do not want the meathead to be dead

So…it’s now just Sento, Misora and Sawa…wow, Muto is merciful since other series would’ve killed our girls who aren’t even Riders but he didn’t…*checks to see that dragon bean, greasy bean and crocodile bean are probably dead* should I be grateful ????

WOW SO UM EVOLTO COMES BACK IN THE FINALE AND THERE’S NO RYUUGA IN SIGHT SO????

JUST DIE ALREADY EVOLTO

And it may or may not look like I’ll get a Sento/Misora moment at last? Idek at this point everyone is going to die huh huh huh????

Why on earth is the last teaser still image for the finale a literal rabbit what is Muto getting at

[elisaenglish]

All the Difference in the World

It seems almost contradictory to think of shining a light on dystopias. And there’s a certain element of “Why should we?” when history offers a damning surplus of cautionary tales and the future beckons with innovation yet too murky to fully judge. Here we are at the pivot. The pendulum swings without a concrete place to land and opinion drowns consideration. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on; we vacillate like a metronome as spectacle draws attention.

Thus, herein lies our quandary. We can speculate, but we can’t know. We can weigh, but far from settle. Literature presents some longed-for clues, except less discerning eyes are prone to over-simplify the essentials.

After all, non-literary figures frequently cite Orwell as science fiction’s most incisive voice and I agree that there’s grain of truth there. But I can’t help but feel somewhat sorry for poor old George, languishing in his premature grave, largely misread and far too easily utilised to justify all manner of dubious agendas. Quote-mining? Never a good idea. It’s like taking the moral high ground; there really is only one way to go. As for the ghost of the writer? There are two words you need to embrace: context and oeuvre. And in this case, I suspect he’d also like his name back. Because anyone of sober mind really would.

So if not Orwell, then who? If not a partial analogy, then where resides completion? And I hesitate at this juncture because parallelism is never an exact measure and variables come and go. Still, it feels safe – and by ‘safe’ I mean ‘absolutely fucking terrifying’ – to place our bets on Brave New World.

Not entirely original, I know. You could argue that it’s a bit mainstream, a bit staid, possibly a bit done to death. I could trawl obscurity to find something – well, obscure. But no, because what would be the point? Huxley, to use a technical term, knows his prophetic shit.

And ninety years later, here on the brink of some digital abyss, it looks a lot like we’re living it. Or at least we will be, before the next half-century’s done.

Of course, the world was negotiating its own horrifying pre-show in 1931. Lest we forget, communism and fascism were entrenched on the eastern and southern flanks of Europe. Meanwhile, Nazism was on the rise in the crumbling Weimar Republic and the Great Depression took its social and economic toll on the entire globe. In the midst, however, Huxley drew together a vision of a political model that had evolved civilisation beyond war, or famine, or plague, or suffering. A place of continuous peace, prosperity, where the government artificially, by means of advances in biotechnology and social manipulation, keeps everyone in a permanent state of contentment so that no one ever has any reason to rebel.

Control through love and pleasure, we see, is far more potent than that acquired through fear and violence. A whole population anaesthetised, and on and on they beg for another, and another hit. Familiar, isn’t it? And somehow under your skin because unlike 1984, it isn’t as easy to pinpoint what makes this scenario the worst of the worst, or even just one of them.

We turn, then, to the novel’s climactic moment. John the Savage, having lived all his life on a remote reservation in New Mexico and symbolic of the authentic and passionate mindset eliminated in the name of ‘benign’ tyranny, is brought before Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Western Europe and the only other man in London to know anything of Shakespeare or God, or it must be said, freedom:

““My dear young friend,” said Mustapha Mond, “civilisation has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organised society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended—there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren’t any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There’s no such thing as a divided allegiance; you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears—that’s what soma is.”

“But the tears are necessary. Don’t you remember what Othello said? ‘If after every tempest come such calms, may the winds blow till they have wakened death.’ There’s a story one of the old Indians used to tell us, about the Girl of Mátsaki. The young men who wanted to marry her had to do a morning’s hoeing in her garden. It seemed easy; but there were flies and mosquitoes, magic ones. Most of the young men simply couldn’t stand the biting and stinging. But the one that could—he got the girl.”

“Charming! But in civilised countries,” said the Controller, “you can have girls without hoeing for them; and there aren’t any flies or mosquitoes to sting you. We got rid of them all centuries ago.”

The Savage nodded, frowning. “You got rid of them. Yes, that’s just like you. Getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them... But you don’t do either. Neither suffer nor oppose. You just abolish the slings and arrows. It’s too easy... What you need is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here. Exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death and danger dare, even for an egg-shell. Isn’t there something in that?”

[…]

“There's a great deal in it,” the Controller replied. “Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time.”

“What?” questioned the Savage, uncomprehending.

“It’s one of the conditions of perfect health. That's why we've made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory.”

“V.P.S.?”

“Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenin. It’s the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences.”

“But I like the inconveniences.”

“We don’t,” said the Controller. “We prefer to do things comfortably.”

“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right, then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy. Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.”

There was a long silence.

“I claim them all,” said the Savage at last.”

So it is that he rejects the ‘blessings’ of modernity and retires to the wilderness to live out the rest of his days as a hermit. Having tried – and failed – to incite rebellion in those shackled by the system, he has learned from their apathy that they cannot be saved unless they possess inside them the will to liberate themselves. Such instincts are instilled in us through the multiplicity – not least of all, our stories, our art. Without them, we are husks of our generational selves, perhaps never to be salvaged.

True to form, as we see in these our days now, John is eventually hounded to death; his novelty of antiquated longings yet more fuel for a public driven rabid by consumerist lust. But so, his soul remains:

“He was digging in his garden—digging, too, in his own mind, laboriously turning up the substance of his thought. Death—and he drove in his spade once, and again, and yet again. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. A convincing thunder rumbled through the words. He lifted another spadeful of earth. Why had Linda died? Why had she been allowed to become gradually less than human and at last... He shuddered. A good kissing carrion. He planted his foot on his spade and stamped it fiercely into the tough ground. As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. Thunder again; words that proclaimed themselves true—truer somehow than truth itself. And yet that same Gloucester had called them ever-gentle gods. Besides, thy best of rest is sleep, and that thou oft provok'st; yet grossly fear'st thy death which is no more. No more than sleep. Sleep. Perchance to dream. His spade struck against a stone; he stooped to pick it up. For in that sleep of death, what dreams?...”

What death? What purity? What dreams? And of course, what strength?

Choose your dystopias wisely, you could say. But nonetheless, choose. As Huxley writes in his essay Drugs That Shape Men’s Minds, “Generalised intelligence and mental alertness are the most powerful enemies of dictatorship.” We are the intuitive solution; we are the nuanced light. And for all of Miranda's mistaken claims, we might live to “see how beauteous mankind is.” Just be wary of the distractions.